Hopefully the Changes Will Remain Minimal

Back when streaming really started to be the big thing vs. cable TV, I went through the three major offerings and quickly settled on one.

• Amazon's Fire TV stick seemed like a natural fit since I was a prime member, but it was kinda meh, and also back in those days Amazon and Google would periodically argue and YouTube would disappear from the Fire TV menu.
• Google's early-version Chromecast was cheap, so I gave it a try, but I didn't like the interface as much as Amazon's and found it basically useless (I never bought the later versions of the device).
• Then I found a TV on a pretty good sale ... and it had Roku built into it. Loved the interface, and the offerings, from the start.

These days, every TV-size screen in our house, except for my two computer monitors (which are Amazon Fire TVs but never used as such), is either a Roku TV or has a Roku device plugged into it. Roku handles all the streaming platforms we have subscriptions to (including Amazon Prime TV), with lots of free options and periodic good intro deals on things we consider trying.

Now I hear that Fox is buying Roku for $22 billion.

Fox seems to be saying that the only really visible change to expect is more emphasis on Fox's own streaming channels (and, I expect, a concomitant lessening of emphasis on its direct competitors -- CBS's Paramount+ and NBC's Peacock) when Roku is making suggestions, and probably integration of The Roku Channel and Tubi into the Fox brand. The devices will continue to be open to all the streaming apps one might care to add.

That seems like the smart way to go. Roku has developed a damn good user interface and made itself (IMO) into the most usable and useful streaming device option by far. If Fox starts messing with that, either someone new will come along, or Amazon/Google will up their games, and the golden goose will end up wounded or dead.

Applicable(?) Aphorisms #24

 "The wound of a friend is better than the kiss of an enemy." (Sikhism, Guru Granth Sahib 600)

True, false, good, bad, useful, not so useful, etc.? Discuss.

My thoughts:

I guess it depends on whether the friend in question is really a friend, or just someone posing as a friend.

A real friend may sometimes wound you by telling you truths or offering observations that you find hurtful, but when a real friend does so it's for the purpose of trying to help you fix a problem or correct a flaw.

A fake friend may wound you in the guise of trying to help you, but only for purposes of plausible deniability, when he or she does not in fact have your best interests at heart. That "friend" may actually be an enemy, or just a manipulative type incapable of true friendship.

The aphorism presupposes an honesty/clarity regarding who's a friend and who's not, when such honesty/clarity isn't always the case.

Wordle 1827 Hint

Hint: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck ... and if it's an adult duck, there's a slightly more than 50% chance that it's one of these.

Not Enough? Get the first letter of today's Wordle after the ad below.

New to Wordle? You can play it at the New York Times, and here are some thoughts on how I go about solving each day's puzzle.

First Letter: D